Talk:Addiction, Buddhist Definition of

No consensus to delete. VfD notice removed. Suggestions are that this may be incorporated into other articles, but I don't feel competent to do that as I don't know the subject well enought to know where it should go, so I'll leave that to others, if they wish. The deletion debate is archived below. Cecropia 21:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

summary:

Delete (75%):Torrid, Postdlf, Dpbsmith, The Anome, Zigger, UtherSRG

Keep(25%):Scott P., Wile E. Heresiarch

deletion vote debate
This article reads like a personal essay that attempts to support an undergrad's original research by referring to Buddhist philosophy. The essence of this page is a table of concepts apparently original to ScottPerry that claims to be "An overlay of the Buddhist model of addiction onto the most commonly accepted Western world-view". The overlay incorrectly represents "the most commonly accepted Western world-view", especially in the context of addiction medicine, and misrepresents by omission how Buddhist philosophy has significantly influenced western behavioral medicine. The article does not support claims that anything is "the" Bhuddist definition. If the article cited some published sources that are used in actual Buddhist schools of teaching (not Buddhists schools of "thought"), it would begin to be an accurate assessment. Otherwise, it is one person's point of view about how their individual understanding of Buddhism offers what they see as a better approach to the idea of addiction than does their perception of "western" approaches. The sole source cited to support this essay is another on-line personal essay, the author of which admits was written "partly for my own pleasure". In as much as the article accurately summarizes Buddhist approaches, it could stand as a subsection of the addiction article. Whatever is not rooted in other Buddhist sources can be published in a forum more suited for personal essays. Torrid 17:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Torrid 17:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with addiction and/or Buddhism and delete. Postdlf  22:23 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Revised vote below. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) Delete: original research, so don't merge w/ Buddhism or addiction. BTW the "add to this debate" link above is broken. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:06, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) Think I've fixed it. Dpbsmith 01:04, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, original essay. Dpbsmith 01:04, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, original essay. -- The Anome 13:55, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A defense of the article by the author of the article.  I apologize for neglecting to insert sufficient references into this article. Thank you for correctly pointing out this shortcoming.  I have since inserted several additional source references.  Please forgive me but the synonymousness of the words &#8220;desire&#8221; and &#8220;addiction&#8221; within the Buddhist philosophy is nearly perfect.  This article merely points this out and delineates the logical outgrowths of this innate synonymousness.  I cannot deny the fact that fundamental Buddhist philosophy holds that the primary basis for most addictions is probably psychological and not physiological.  I cannot deny that this Buddhist belief may be somewhat different from the model of addiction cited in the primary Wikipedia article on addiction.  Still, I have in no way attempted to misrepresent the Western medical model of addiction in this article (which seems to lean more towards the likelihood of a physiological etiology of addiction, than towards a psychological etiology).  I hope that the references cited will be sufficient for you to perhaps be able to stop attempting to delete this article. Scott P. 14:21, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm satisfied that there is a Buddhist definition of addiction outside of Wikipedia. Scott, bear in mind that WP is here to report on stuff that already exists in the world at large. Essays, no matter how good, don't have a place here. However, looking at the references I see that there already exists some literature on this topic. Reporting on that literature is suitable for WP. You may wish to further revise the article with that in mind. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 16:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the good advice regarding suitable content. I have gone ahead and edited the article according to your suggestion, attempting to better confine the article to already known or commonly accepted knowledge.  Scott P. 17:06, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Incorporate into Addiction and delete. The current content seems to be consistent with the title (Addiction, Buddhist Definition of, which should probably be more like "Buddhist definition of addiction"), but as an addiction-related topic it seems inherently POV, which is backed up by Scottperry's synchronous redirect of Addiction, Western Medical Model to Addiction. Also, the content states that it's effectively just a specialisation of the Buddhist view of attachment - an article which would be improved by having a section or disambiguation for the Buddhist concept. --Zigger 20:30, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
 * Added Addiction, Western Medical Model to Redirects for deletion. --Zigger 21:49, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * Incorporate into Addiction and Buddhism. - UtherSRG 20:02, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pre-vote, pre-revision comments by Torrid
This article does not summarize the "Bhuddist Definition of Addiction". This is a personal essay looking for a home. The definitional structure listed in the article is not supported by the sole source cited, which is another personal essay of one person's application of Bhuddist concepts to the subject of addiction.

This article is problematic in an encylopedic context because it allows an individual - an American undergraduate - to speak for Bhuddists world wide. If the article cited Bhuddist literature dealing specifically with addiciton, written by Bhuddists working in the field of behavioral medicine, it would be more accurate. But even then, the article insults Bhuddists by acting as if Wikipedia is the Dali Lama and the Dali Lama speaks to and for all Bhuddists. Neither is true.

Generally, the essay touches on some Buddhist approaches to the concept, but as presented here, does not tie the essay to Bhuddist practices. Bhuddism appears as an appendage by which this essay attempts to attach legitimacy to one person's preferred world view.

At most, this "an American Buddhist's definition of addiction". I'm going to place it on VfD, in hopes someone can either render it accurate, suggests a destination for such a personal essay, or afford it the responsible editorial judgement one would expect of any other widely read publication by excluding it from this encycledia unless it can be presented as an accurate representation of the views of others.

Several sources emphasise the complimentary nature of Bhuddist approaches with approaches used in the west, including the 12 steps approach. These comparisons can stand in an article on addiction. The original model of nine categories ScottPerry attempts to construct is interesting and informative, but it is ScottPerry's original thinking, and find no place in encyclopedic representations of world knowledge until it finds a place in world knowledge.

Otherwise, the addiction article already emphasises how a broader view of addiction has influenced scientific approaches, both in biological sciences and in social sciences. Spiritual approaches, a broad understanding of desire and understanding of the value of self-transcendence are imporant elements to the development of western teaching regarding addiction. "Late in his life, Maslow (1964) identified the need for self-transcendence as the highest need and described spiritual or mystical states as the most rewarding experiences humans can have." 

Buddhism and 12 step approaches are complimentary: http://www.apocryphile.net/jrm/articles/12step.html http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Books/Content?oid=oid:50511

Evidence of a wider understanding of desire and addiction discussed among Western addiction counselors in Western counselor's publication: http://www.counselormagazine.com/display_article.asp?aid=feb04Opinion.htm

A Buddhist drug-treatment addiction center offers evidence of similar practices to Western-based centers - espcially a focus on chemical dependency and use of detoxification as a first procedure in treatment - both are fundamental precepts of the American Society of Addiction Medicine. Torrid 00:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Further references added.
Dear Torrid, I apologize for neglecting to insert sufficient references into this article. Thank you for correctly pointing out this shortcoming. I have since inserted several additional source references. Please forgive me but the synonymousness of the words &#8220;desire&#8221; and &#8220;addiction&#8221; within the Buddhist philosophy is nearly perfect. This article merely points this out and delineates the logical outgrowths of this innate synonymousness. I cannot deny the fact that fundamental Buddhist philosophy holds that the primary basis for most addictions is probably psychological and not physiological. I cannot deny that this Buddhist belief may be somewhat different from the model of addiction cited in the primary Wikipedia article on addiction. Still, I have in no way attempted to misrepresent the Western medical model of addiction in this article (which seems to lean more towards the likelihood of a physiological etiology of addiction, than towards a psychological etiology). I hope that the references cited will be sufficient for you to perhaps be able to stop attempting to delete this article. Scott P. 16:17, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Scott,

Chart removed
As suggested by Wile E. Heresiarch over at the VFD page, I have also now removed the chart with the nine subcategories of addiction that may have been an overextension of a line of thought regarding the implications of Buddhism as it might pertain to the most commonly accepted Western view of addiction. Scott P. 17:34, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Torrid sympathy
This is about the outcome I had hoped for, except the lingering and faulty notion that there is either a Western or a Buddhist notion of addiction. Many Buddhists are physicians, and as such embrace sciences developed in the West by liberally educated thinkers who reflected on many of the world's traditions. Because they each lack internal consensus, neither Buddhist philosophy nor Western science supports a strict dichotomy of views, which I suspect more likely finds roots in an individual's personal experience and fanciful interpretations that overemphasize beneficial aspects of a foreign ideal. Whether you have "attempted" to misrepresent the Western model or not, you have done so by assuming that there is a Western model. You tend to confuse modernism with Westernism. Modernist medical practitioners throughout Asia would likely be offended if sciences which originated in Greece and were at first violently rejected by Western cosmologists were now labeled as primarily Western in origin. Such an assumption ignores broad debate within the Western medical community, the significant linkages between the Western medical community and the health community world-wide, mutual contributions of international health communities related to the study of addiction, and the waning appeal of Buddhist fundamentalism in lands that embrace Buddhist ideology. By citing a "Western" model of addiction without summarizing the development of debate within the International Society of Addiction Medicine, you offer ill-informed views based on a subjective understanding.

If you are reviewing a Buddhist lexicon regarding terms related to addiction, you might also find the term "attachment" used by some apologists. Also, you might note that some Western Buddhists' concept of addiction is based on their idealized views of how others view addiction and not on the term as defined by international medical associations. You might discover Buddhist notions of Western notions were sometimes developed in the absence of a broad concensus in the Western medical community. You might find a few 21st Century Western Buddhists rebutting 40-year-old definitions of addiction while erroneously attributing those definitions to the "Western medical community". In explaining Buddhist ideals, it would be best to summarize the historical and geographical context of these ideals and not to generalize them as relevant or now held by the vast majority of Buddhists in Asia or elsewhere. But I would assert this article can stand as a Buddhist definition of addiction only if such a definition can be found in a Bhuddist dictionary. Paraphrases and religious teachings are not definitive.

Among Buddhists, the extinguishing of desires is only advanced as a goal by certain sects particularly followers of the hinayana path, which is popular in the United States. But not being a Buddhist scholar, I can't readily cite the differences without citing sources. And today I am (or was) instead working on writing for publications that can support research because their readers are interested enough to pay writers to compose accurate articles. But practitioners of the Mahayana teachings hold that objects of desire are not real, so there is no reason to fear them. There may be little reason for the Mahayana practitioner to pursue nirvana, because none of it is real. Even once enlightened, for the mahayanist, objects of desire may warrant caution, but if they benefit sentient beings, their use may be beneficial. This Middle Path tends to let it be, and might embrace desires as a step on the path to enlightement. Then Tantrayana practice presents yet another unique approach. Desires are accepted and harnessed for tuning one's psychic alignment toward an ideal. But, because of my limited understanding, I would not attempt to apply these concepts in an article on Buddhist definitions of addiction. I cite them merely as evidence that the concept of addiction=desire<nirvana is only a limited view of Buddhist approaches to the concept of desire.

Nonetheless, non-definitive Buddhist concepts related to desire, and to the continuum of desire, attachment and addiction can obviously be considered as a stand-alone topic. I recognize that you contribute to Wikipedia primarily on the weekends, so I had hoped you would find time and a constructive direction to redeem the article before it was dumped. When I get a chance, I'll review the latest revision against my knowledge in the field to weed out any comparison to "Westernism" that might not reflect an informed understanding of how scientific models of addiction and of behavioral medicine have developed. But thanks for spending time on the article and for moving it in the direction of accuracy. As a tool for personal development, the chart you offered seemed quite useful. Torrid 19:38, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

addendum
After reading the article more carefully, I moved most of the content to the article on Tahna, and redirected this page. I can offer several reasons, but primarily, the article said in Buddhist belief, addiction is synonymous with Tahna. In an encyclopedia, a concept is best described in its original language. The same naming convention is widely recognized in naming peoples, who are best defined by their native description.

Beyond that, an article about a definition is more appropriate for an extensive dictionary. This article can only begin to assess Buddhist definitions after first paraphrasing such a definition. The paraphrase makes it evident the article is actually about Tahna - whatever does not cohere in discussion of Tahna cannot then fall into a discussion of addiction aka Tahna when addiction is described primarily as Tahna.

By appropriately placing discussion of Buddhist terms in articles about the term, we avoid leaning toward speculative assumptions about the nature of Western behavioral medicine. The distinction between psychological and physiological causation is eroding in western publications. See the most recent issue of SciAm re:Freud and Biological Psychology. There is a pro and con article there, asserting alternately that physiological discoveries can or cannot be overlayed on earlier psychological precepts. Lacking strong evidence of the trends you claim (physio rather than psycho causation as the prevailing Western view), comparing and contrasting an ancient Buddhist term with diverse modern views is flawed unless the views are individually compared. If you said Buddhist sect A.'s view compares to western view A. but not westren view B. you would be moving more toward an accurate summary.

Finally, I noted the VfD vote exceeded the 2/3 majority presummed to be a "rough" concensus, and used that as a guideline that most readers so interested as to respond were finding the views expressed to be more of a personal perspective than an informed encyclopedic overview. I would suggest you understaning of modern views of addiction is not rooted in knowledge of plenary debate within American or international professional associations, nor in a broad knowledge of practical Buddhism beyond a knowledge of fundamental texts and Westernized practices.

I hope you are not too dismayed by my interest in this article. I am only helping out because I consider the topic too important to be abandoned to subjective interpretations of part-time pro-bono writers, when the subjective ideas of Buddhist scolars, those of medical researchers and those of clinical practitioners all offer so much valuable insight. I know it can be disappointing to return to an article you have worked on and find it decimated by critical review, but I encourage you to continue refining your understanding of the article. It is in fact helping to reach an accurate representation of Buddhist teachings that are related to the topic of addiction. I encourage you to review your writing (both pre- and post- edit in search of sentences, paragraphs or ideas that can be included in the addiction article. As a hint, I would advise that representing the Buddhist concept of tahna, in and of itself, leaves your prose on stronger ground than does an attempt to contrast that concept with a summary of modern medical science. I might suggest some phrase under the "Addiction: casual addictions" heading (or elsewhere) that starts "The most broad understanding of addiction seems to compare with the Buddhist concept of tahna, which is the idea that..." Torrid 20:34, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. - A regular reader of Tricycle or other popular english-language Buddhist literature might agree the more salient question to modern Buddhist thinkers is not whether the etiology of desire is based in psychological or in physiological causes, but rather, what to do with both psychological and physiological systems that attentuate behaviors related to desire. Torrid 20:53, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Torrid comment summary
This article discussed a Buddhist definition for tahna, and explained that tahna is a concept similar to medical concepts of addiction. It failed to discuss more specific views or definitions of addiction practiced in Buddhist societies, and failed to recognize the breadth of discussion about what is addiction in western societies. Because encylopedias are not dictionaries, because this article did not accurately explore definitions related to the title, and because 6 of 8 respondants concurred with the criticism, I redirected it to a more appropriate title, with compliments to the patient and beleagured author. Torrid 00:51, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Scott P.'s Reply to Torrid
I am satisfied with this redirection to the Tanha definition page. The close similarities between the most commonly accepted Western definition of the word 'addiction' and the Buddhist definition of the term 'Tanha' remain duly noted, while the relocation of the page to this definition serves to also point out the dissimalirities.

As a student of historical Buddhism, I believe that it would be safe for me to say that the term 'Tanha' is a term that dates back to the historical beginnings of Buddhism, and which is not a later development. As such, it seems to be a part of the terminology of nearly every modern day Buddhist sect. It also seems to retain its original meaning very much intact.

Regarding the difference between the original Buddhist concept of the genesis of suffering and hence disease, vs. the Western medical model of the genesis of disease, I also believe that it is safe for me to say that the Western medical model tends to place more stress on the physiological factors involved than does the Buddhist model of disease.

Torrid, I agree with your redirect, and I thank you for the thoughtful work, comments and research you have obviously done regarding this article.

Scott P. 11:34, May 16, 2004 (UTC)